Note: Between flaccid climate sensitivity, ENSO driving “the pause”, and now this, it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.
From a Technical University of Denmark press release comes what looks to be a significant confirmation of Svensmark’s theory of temperature modulation on Earth by cosmic ray interactions. The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here. The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays, and warmer temperatures. Now the sun has gone into a record slump, and there are predictions of cooler temperatures ahead This new and important paper is published in Physics Letters A. – Anthony
Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation
Researchers in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are hard on the trail of a previously unknown molecular process that helps commonplace clouds to form. Tests in a large and highly instrumented reaction chamber in Lyngby, called SKY2, demonstrate that an existing chemical theory is misleading.
Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.
Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally, as was done with SKY2, the chamber of which holds 8 cubic metres of air and traces of other gases. One series of experiments confirmed the unfavourable prediction that the new clusters would fail to grow sufficiently to be influential for clouds. But another series of experiments, using ionizing rays, gave a very different result, as can be seen in the accompanying figure.
The reactions going on in the air over our heads mostly involve commonplace molecules. During daylight hours, ultraviolet rays from the Sun encourage sulphur dioxide to react with ozone and water vapour to make sulphuric acid. The clusters of interest for cloud formation consist mainly of sulphuric acid and water molecules clumped together in very large numbers and they grow with the aid of other molecules.
Atmospheric chemists have assumed that when the clusters have gathered up the day’s yield, they stop growing, and only a small fraction can become large enough to be meteorologically relevant. Yet in the SKY2 experiment, with natural cosmic rays and gamma-rays keeping the air in the chamber ionized, no such interruption occurs. This result suggests that another chemical process seems to be supplying the extra molecules needed to keep the clusters growing.
“The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters. Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars.”
###
The new paper is:
Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation” H. Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Physics Letters A 377 (2013) 2343–2347.
In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide,and water vapor, the relative increase in aerosols produced by ionization by gamma sources is constant from nucleation to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This resultcontradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response at larger particle sizes. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulfuric acid in small clusters.
FULL PAPER LINK PROVIDED IN THE PRESS RERLEASE: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf (open access PDF)
LOCAL COPY: (for those having trouble with link above): Svensmark_PLA22068 (PDF)
(h/t to “me” in WUWT Tips and Notes)
Related articles
- EcoAlert: “Milky Way’s Cosmic Rays Have Direct Impact on Earth’s Weather & Climate” (dailygalaxy.com)
- Unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation (sciencedaily.com)
- Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation (phys.org)
- Svensmark Effect Attacked: Study claims cosmic rays don’t effect clouds (junkscience.com)
- Ten Year Anniversary of the Climate Change Paradigm Shift (americanthinker.com)
- Spencer’s posited 1-2% cloud cover variation found (wattsupwiththat.com)
Added: an explanatory video from John Coleman –
And this documentary:
Jim
Am not sure if its the same in Texas, but here in the UK we get high cloud during fine spells.
When warm moist air has been drawn up from the tropics and moves around a area of high pressure. The area of high pressure dry’s up the lower clouds but a fair bit of the high Cirrus remains.
As an example of the contribution GCR/atomic particle collisions that could contribute to CN formation, I would offer up this visible satellite loop showing the formation of a lower-level, daytime-heating cumulus over Texas with the hypothesis that if GCR et al are responsible for increased cloud formation (as opposed to having no effect whatsoever) that the effect would be a) increased areal extent and b) a slightly sooner (earlier) formation (on the time scale or seconds? minutes?)
So, we are talking marginal changes in the rate of CN creation, but, as anybody in business will tell you it can be small marginal differences that make or break the balance sheet.
The 3-hr visible imagery sat loop:
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=ABI&itype=vis&size=large&endDate=20130905&endTime=-1&duration=3
.
‘Albert Stienstra says:
September 5, 2013 at 6:53 am
@ur momisugly Steven Mosher September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
A Forbush event is an event where GCR decreases spectacularly. Forbush event = less GCR = no clouds. Fits with Svensmark’s experiments.”
Except, when you look at cloudiness before and after these events you see NO DIFFERENCE.
the theory has been falsified, so he is looking for a mechanism to explain something that doesnt happen.
‘The hard donkey work for Svensmark has been proving that cosmic rays actually do increase low levl cloud formation.”
Especially when there is no evidence that the do increase low level cloud formation.
Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:42 am
Actually there is abundant evidence that cosmic rays increase clouds & do affect temperature:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/new-paper-links-cosmic-rays-clouds-and-temperature/
How much longer are you going to keep denying reality?
Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:42 am
Especially when there is no evidence that they do increase low level cloud formation.
and in addition the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link as I pointed out up-thread.
lets see if we can focus people on the actual data.
As leif and I have tried to point out Svensmark theory is this.
More GCR = More clouds.
Now, he is investigating the mechanism, the chemistry. But before we look for an explanation of the effect ( more GCR = more clouds ) dont you think it makes sense to look
at the observations?
1. we have observations of GCR
2. We have observations of clouds
Is it true that when GCR increase that clouds increase? Well, go look at the data.
Answer? Nope. You cant find any clear change in clouds when GCR increase.
Now lets suppose that Svensmark discovers some new chemistry in the lab, and we have more support for the idea. you STILL have the problem of why this effect is not seen in the ‘wild”.
The theory is clear More GCR = More clouds.
That is testable today.
Go look at cloudiness versus GCR. and what do you find?
GCR and clouds are un correlated.
maybe the effect is small? maybe all the instruments are bad? maybe monkeys will fly out of your butts, but to date, the theory explains an effect that doesnt happen.
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:54 am
Actually there is abundant evidence that cosmic rays increase clouds & do affect temperature
If so, there would be abundant evidence for a clear solar cycle variation in temperature and there is not [beyond the 0.1C expected from variation in TSI].
Studies from Team members denying reality are IMO less convincing than disinterested studies by real scientists:
From the actual atmosphere
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/4060/
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf
However, for the contrary position, see this summary:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1?journalCode=clim
From a simulated atmosphere (thanks to Dr. Svalgaard’s site):
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL047036.pdf
At best, the issue of actual observation is IMO unresolved.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:02 am
This Serbian study did find a statistically significant delta T:
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:22 am
This Serbian study did find a statistically significant delta T:
Based on a few events. And the FDs selected in their study are rare [less than one per year] so have no influence on the climate.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf ““In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”
Leif: If so, there would be abundant evidence for a clear solar cycle variation in temperature and there is not [beyond the 0.1C expected from variation in TSI].
Not necessarily, changes in latent heat and ocean heat content could mask a signal in temperature and lags. Coincidental chagnes in UV could drive heat distribution changes.
aaron says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:35 am
Not necessarily, changes in latent heat and ocean heat content could mask a signal
If so, there will be no correlation between cosmic rays and temperature as the variations are ‘masked’, so there goes the observational ‘evidence’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
All valid comments as per that study, however it & others with similar findings IMO mean that it’s wrong to say there exists no evidence of the effect. Surely there is some, IMO at least as compelling as the studies finding none.
Leif once again does not get it ,when it comes to solar/climate correlations. He is stuck on the fact that any changes in solar activity must correlate to those items some say are correlated with the sun, when in reality that just is not the case.
He does not understand that thresholds have to be reached through a degree of magnitude change and duration of time change in solar conditions in order to translate to a high degree of solar/climate correlation, or for that matter any correlation at all. Infact at times of steady 11 year solar rhythmic cycles which has been the case from post Dalton-2005 anti correlations can and will occur.
This is where so many get fooled into thinking their are no correlations. Yes there are correlations indeed but the solar activity change has to be signifcant enough to off set the random chaotic climate happenings of earth which also influence the various items, many feel have a solar /climate connection.
I guess it wouldn’t be right not to post this link in CRF energy balance thread:
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
There are lags and distortions from ocean cycles, ENSO, PDO etc. But there seems to be a signal in the oceans.
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:39 am
Surely there is some, IMO at least as compelling as the studies finding none.
‘Surely’? Sounds like the word of a believer. The way ir often goes in science is that there seems to be a correlation, then when more data becomes available, the correlation becomes weaker or simply goes away. This is what seems to happening here. The going-away of the belief is always lagging the going-away of the effect, as you demonstrate.
If this prolonged solar minimum lives up to it’s potential then you will see correlations, but right now we are in moderate solar activity.
For example the latest OULU cosmic ray count is 6145/minute ,which is to low to have a significant cause and effect. I estimate we need a cosmic ray count upwards of 6600/min. (sustained)in order to show a significant cosmic ray/cloud cover correlation.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:42 am
any changes in solar activity must correlate to those items some say are correlated with the sun, when in reality that just is not the case
Tell that to Svensmark, who claims that there is a nice one-to-one correlation…
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:46 am
I used the term “surely” advisedly, based upon the fact that credible studies come down on both sides of the question. Likewise, I used “deny” advisedly, since asserting that there is no evidence of the effect is to deny the reality of scientific studies with at least as much cogency as those upon which you rely.
My use of the term may have implied belief or blind faith to you, but that’s not how I meant it. You apparently give more credence to studies which support your view, while denying the validity of those which don’t. I do the same, in reverse, based upon the shenanigans I’ve observed on the part of other Team members.
But can we agree that there is not “no evidence” for a GCR-cloud-temperature link, however unconvincing you may find it?
Leif ,again thresholds have to be considered,lag times have to be considered, sustainability has to be considered,the pastsolar action has to be considered, earthly random events have to be considered which may oppose solar influences, and the solar changes themselves have to be considered before you can judge if the correlation is or is not present.
You wrongly assume much to much based on your limited data.
I should say very limited data over a very limited time frame.
I will say it one more time correlations are not simply something happens to( a) causes something to happen to( b) when it comes to the climate.
The climate in non linear, with thresholds, which make correlations difficult in the lack of extreme events , such a a very large volcanic eruption versus a small one.
Leif would conclude if a small volcanic eruption happend there would be no cause and effect on the climate from volcanic eruptions, not knowing if the volcanic eruption is large enough thresholds will come about which will indeed influence the climate.
This analogy with volcanic action in the above works with the sun, where a weak volcanic eruption equates to a steady 11 year rhythmic sunspot cycle,(no effects or correlations) while a large volcanic eruption equates to a very long prolonged solar minimum(many effects and correlations.)
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:50 am
I estimate we need a cosmic ray count upwards of 6600/min. (sustained)in order to show a significant cosmic ray/cloud cover correlation.
For the 1793 days since 1964 [when Oulu began measuring] there have been exactly 8 days before the year 2007 where the count has been [barely] above 6600/min, so the correlations claimed by so many must all be spurious according to you. I can agree with that.
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:56 am
You apparently give more credence to studies which support your view, while denying the validity of those which don’t. I do the same, in reverse, based upon the shenanigans I’ve observed on the part of other Team members.
I give more credence to recent papers examining the latest data. And I do that based on the science, not like you on your perception of how people behave.
But can we agree that there is not “no evidence” for a GCR-cloud-temperature link, however unconvincing you may find it?
The careful review paper I linked to concludes “the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link” On basis of what can I disagree with that assessment?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:58 am
You wrongly assume much to much based on your limited data.
I should say very limited data over a very limited time frame.
You mean that Svensmark assumes too much based on the limited data. I can agree with that.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:09 pm
I will say it one more time correlations are not simply something happens to( a) causes something to happen to( b) when it comes to the climate.
I will say one more time that you should tell Svensmark that. That you think he does not know what he is talking about.
Again this analogy , what Leif concludes is if volcanic eruptions were all very small, his data would show no correlations with the climate therefore he would wrongly conclude all volcanic eruptions would have no correlatoins with the climate.
That is where he is at, when it comes to solar/climate correlations.